{"id":150105,"date":"2025-06-07T13:33:42","date_gmt":"2025-06-07T20:33:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=150105"},"modified":"2025-06-07T13:33:42","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T20:33:42","slug":"is-the-repeal-of-penal-code-365-365a-a-move-to-legalize-public-sex-even-with-minors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2025\/06\/07\/is-the-repeal-of-penal-code-365-365a-a-move-to-legalize-public-sex-even-with-minors\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the Repeal of Penal Code 365 & 365A a Move to Legalize Public Sex\u2014Even with Minors?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shenali D Waduge<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

IF OTHER LAWS EXISTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN THERE WAS NEVER A NEED TO HAVE 365 OR 365A OR FOR THE GOVT TO STRENGTHEN IT IN 1995 & 2006. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

THIS IS THE ONLY 2 SECTIONS THAT SPECIFY SAME-SEX SEXUAL ABUSE & PROTECTS MINORS – IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT ADULTS ACTUALLY WANT TO PUT CHILDRENS LIVES IN JEOPARDY NOT UNDERSTAND THE REAL SITUATION ….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When \u2018Discrimination\u2019 demands Freedom to have Sex (carnal intercourse) against the Order of Nature in Public: A Critical Look at LGBTQIA Demands on Penal Code 365 & 365A. Are LGBTQIA Rights Truly Being Denied? Advocates of rights\u201d and freedoms\u201d for the LGBTQIA community frequently claim they face discrimination under Sri Lanka\u2019s existing laws\u2014particularly Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A, which pertain to carnal intercourse against the order of nature and gross indecency. However, these accusations are rarely backed by concrete evidence<\/strong>. The claims are emotional, vague, and often fail to define what specific rights are being denied<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us ask plainly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • What constitutional or civil rights are LGBTQIA individuals denied that are not denied to anyone else?<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Are they refused education, employment, healthcare, or the right to vote?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    In reality, LGBTQIA individuals in Sri Lanka have held, and continue to hold, positions of prominence and influence. Many have served as Presidents, Prime Ministers, First Ladies, Foreign Minister, Ministers<\/strong>, MPs and have excelled as business owners, entrepreneurs, bankers, retailers, educationists, entertainers and human rights activists<\/strong>. They participate fully in society\u2014socially, economically, and politically. This does not reflect systemic exclusion or persecution. They have become who they are with the existence of Penal Code 365 & 365A. There is no tangible evidence to prove that Sections 365 and 365A have resulted in systemic persecution or exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, what is the real grievance?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If the only complaint is that the law prohibits specific sexual acts<\/strong>\u2014acts which apply to all individuals regardless of identity<\/strong>, including heterosexuals\u2014then the argument is not about rights at all. It is about seeking legal permission for behaviors<\/strong> that most societies, especially in the East, deem immoral or unacceptable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Such demands cannot be dressed up as human rights claims<\/strong>, because they are not about access to basic needs or protections. They are about redefining morality<\/strong>, eroding child protection<\/strong>, and legitimizing sexual conduct as identity politics<\/strong>\u2014with no clear social benefit<\/strong> to the wider population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    International Definitions and Interpretations<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    General Meaning:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The phrase carnal intercourse against the order of nature\u201d is a legal term traditionally used in many Commonwealth countries\u2019 penal codes to criminalize sexual acts deemed unnatural or immoral by historical or cultural standards. This typically includes anal or oral sex and bestiality (sex with animals)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal Origins:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The phrase is largely derived from British law, particularly from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which criminalized unnatural offences.\u201d Many former British colonies retained similar language in their penal codes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Gross Indecency<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    General Meaning:<\/strong>
    Gross indecency\u201d is a broader and more vague legal term historically used to criminalize sexual acts that are considered immoral or indecent but may not fall under specific categories like rape or sodomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal Origins:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This term was notably used in British law, for example in the Labouchere Amendment (1885)<\/strong> which criminalized gross indecency\u201d between men, used to prosecute Oscar Wilde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The term was intended to capture sexual acts that fell short of sodomy but were deemed immoral, including acts committed in private or public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    International Legal Context:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have increasingly advocated for the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual acts\u2014framing criminalization as a violation of international human rights, including the right to privacy and freedom from discrimination\u2014these positions primarily reflect Western liberal ideals. Such calls often lack concrete grounding when viewed through the lens of diverse cultural, religious, and social values, particularly in Eastern societies. They tend to focus narrowly on sexual activity itself, disregarding the rich heritage, moral frameworks, and community norms that have strengthened & improved Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A. This raises critical questions about the imposition of universal standards without adequate respect for cultural sovereignty and local societal values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Understanding Real Discrimination vs. Misusing the Term for Immoral Demands<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The public must be able to differentiate between actual discrimination and manipulative misuse of the term<\/strong>. Discrimination is when a woman is denied a job because she is a divorcee. It is when a person with a physical disability is refused employment. It is when a rape victim is shamed and ostracized by society. These are real, tangible forms of injustice that affect an individual\u2019s dignity, survival, and basic human participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But demanding the right to engage in public sex<\/strong>, to legalize carnal intercourse against the order of nature<\/strong>, or to challenge laws that protect minors from sexual abuse<\/strong>\u2014as currently covered under Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A\u2014cannot and must not be equated to discrimination<\/strong>. Such demands have nothing to do with denial of access to education, employment, housing, or public services. Rather, they seek legal permission to normalize sexual behaviors that the vast majority of societies\u2014especially in Eastern cultures\u2014deem immoral, indecent, and socially harmful<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Equating laws that uphold public morality and child protection with discrimination\u201d is a dangerous distortion. It not only devalues the struggles of those who face real oppression, but it also opens the door to undermining legal safeguards against indecency, exploitation, and sexualization of society\u2014including children.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Interpretation Variability:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Different countries interpret carnal intercourse against the order of nature\u201d differently. In some jurisdictions, it may apply broadly to all non-penile-vaginal sexual acts, while others specify acts like anal sex or bestiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Despite no verifiable evidence of discrimination, there is a concerted push by advocacy groups to demand the rewriting of Penal Code Section 365 and the complete repeal of Section 365A. Yet, both these sections do not deal with discrimination; they specifically address carnal intercourse against the order of nature<\/em> and gross indecency.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Are we to accept that consensual acts labeled as carnal intercourse against the order of nature\u201d are themselves discrimination against the LGBTQIA community?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Are we to presume that acts deemed grossly indecent\u201d fall under discrimination claims?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If so, where do we draw the line between private conduct and public order?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A exist not to target any community, but to protect public morality and vulnerable groups\u2014especially children. These laws are designed to prohibit carnal intercourse deemed unnatural and acts of gross indecency, particularly where they could involve or be committed in the presence of minors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, we must ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Are we now to believe that protecting children from exposure to or involvement in same-sex carnal acts or gross indecency is a form of discrimination\u201d against the LGBTQIA community?
    How can legal safeguards intended to shield minors from sexual exploitation be reframed as an infringement on adult sexual freedoms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This inversion of logic leads us to a disturbing reality:
    The real discrimination is being committed against Sri Lanka\u2019s 6.1 million children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Does the Human Rights Commission & the many children\u2019s activists who were intervening petitioners in favor of repealing 365A care about the child?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    By attempting to repeal or weaken Sections 365 and 365A under the guise of promoting rights,\u201d these advocacy campaigns are in fact dismantling critical legal protections that exist to prevent same-sex sexual abuse of minors. This is not progress\u2014it is regression wrapped in a human rights slogan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Child protection is not negotiable. No advocacy\u2014no matter how global, well-funded, or politically supported or threatened with denying loans\/aid or trade concessions\u2014should be allowed to compromise the safety, dignity, and future of children. If the demand for so-called rights\u201d comes at the cost of a child\u2019s protection, it ceases to be a right\u2014it becomes a threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If these sections are repealed or rewritten, does that imply permission or acceptance of public sexual acts or indecent behavior in public spaces? Should society tolerate sexual acts\u2014consensual or otherwise\u2014in public areas simply because a particular community demands it and a bunch of diplomats, foreign funded organizations & individuals & media are promoting it? What about the impact on families, children, and the general public who expect laws to uphold decency & morals?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Are these legal provisions being mischaracterized by advocacy groups as discriminatory, when in reality they regulate behavior deemed unacceptable by societal standards? Could the real issue be about redefining morality & spreading immorality & destroying our society & individuals rather than addressing discrimination?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Furthermore, can we deduce that some demands from within this community effectively push for normalization of sexual acts with minors, considering the language of these sections?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the 1980s, Sri Lanka became infamous as a beach boys\u2019 paradise\u201d where young boys were exploited by foreign pedophiles. Has the country forgotten this shameful chapter? Are we prepared to repeat history by removing the very legal protections that were strengthened in the 1990s and 2006 to prevent such abuse?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Repealing these laws under international pressure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Invites paedophilia under the cloak of consensual behavior.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Normalizes\u00a0public sex actsand\u00a0gross indecency\u00a0in spaces shared by families, children, and religious communities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Undermines Sri Lanka\u2019s\u00a0moral fabric, cultural values, and legal sovereignty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Final Questions for Society<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Should laws protecting\u00a0children\u00a0and\u00a0public morality\u00a0be repealed because a\u00a0few NGOs, foreign diplomats, or funded media campaigns demand it?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Are we willing to\u00a0tolerate public sexual acts\u00a0or\u00a0paedophilic interpretations of freedom\u201d\u00a0simply because they are masked as rights?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Who speaks for the majority? Who defends the child?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Any attempt to rewrite or repeal Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A must begin with a fundamental question:
        Are we protecting human dignity, or undermining it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        If the cost of legal reform is the erosion of morality, decency, and child protection, then it is not reform at all\u2014it is societal sabotage. Let us not trade our children\u2019s innocence for Western-imposed ideologies cloaked in the language of rights. Let us not call immorality progress.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In conclusion, before repealing or amending laws, it is vital to thoroughly examine the actual nature of the claims, the evidence presented, and the broader societal consequences. Without clear distinctions between legitimate rights and conduct regulations, the debate risks endorsing actions that undermine both social order and child protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We call upon lawmakers, civil society, religious heads and every concerned citizen to stand firm in defense of Sri Lanka\u2019s moral values, legal sovereignty, and child protection. Let us not bow to ideological coercion. Let us protect what truly matters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Shenali D Waduge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Shenali D Waduge IF OTHER LAWS EXISTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN THERE WAS NEVER A NEED TO HAVE 365 OR 365A OR FOR THE GOVT TO STRENGTHEN IT IN 1995 & 2006.  THIS IS THE ONLY 2 SECTIONS THAT SPECIFY SAME-SEX SEXUAL ABUSE & PROTECTS MINORS – IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT ADULTS ACTUALLY WANT TO PUT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shenali-waduge"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}